I understand that % of GDP may look worse. That's because the economy has slowed down. I also understand that the deficit spending increase may be higher as a % than spending increase because in a slowed down economy tax revenue goes down. But the report simply indicates that the growth of spending is smaller under Obama than his predecessors. I think that is an important point if it's true.

The graph shows how well the economy was doing since Regan . All grew the economy until Obama then flat line. Why didn't they include Carter in that chart? Do you think Obama is doing a good job with the economy?

Obama's "go green" policies are the same as Carter's--that may be one reason why it's not mentioned. Even if this chart is true, the key to sensible government spending is to have something worthwhile to show for it. Pissing billions away on feel good projects designed to buy votes doesn't move the economy forward. It simply throws us farther in debt.

Its smoke and mirrors. We shouldn't be spending like we are especially when revenues are down. That results in bankruptcy. Comparing him with past presidents is pointless. We are not in the past and we are not in an expansion. We are in the NOW man! All he has done is furthered the entitlement attitude in this country, which will probably get him reelected.

it's also interesting how the 2nd graph shows federal spending on the rise since the Dems took over congress in '06. It gives Obama credit for it leveling out right when the Dems lost control of congress.

The second graph says that there was a big surge in '09 before Obama took office, but as a footnote to the first graph, it says that the '09 stimulus has been re-assigned to Obama. Hmmmm.....

Would you guys agree with the philosophy that the time for a govt to pay down the debt is when the economy is strong. And the time for the govt to spend is when the economy is weak?

If the economy is strong, and tax revenues are up, then taking the extra revenues to pay down the debt, rather than fund additional entitlements, seems wise. Given what our government has spent already, I am not sure there is ever a good time for the "government to spend" more at least not for many, many years.

would you agree with the philosopy that the time for the government to increase taxes is when the economy is strong. And the time for the government to decrease taxes is when the economy is weak?

I am not sure that one makes sense to me either. Given my confidence in "the government", I think I would probably just as soon they stay out of it altogether. A little more certainty, and the thought that the goverment isn't going to change the rules of the game every cycle probably wouldn't hurt.

"We shouldn't be spending like we are especially when revenues are down."

You mean like waging two foreign wars and then having the GOP candidate championing a war with Iran? I guess if the spending satisfies your base, it's okay.

No its not, and I never said it was. Are you one of those idiots that thinks if it was done in the past, its ok for the future? News flash. We can't change the past. But I guess if the spending satisfies YOUR base, it's ok.

You are missing the point Paul. The point is that if it was done in the past by the Republicans it will be done in the future by the Republicans. Same with the Democrats. The reason for the article was to point out that the rhetoric about Obama's spending is unwarranted if used to convince people to vote republican. Because that's deception.

Also no I do not agree that the time to raise taxes is when the economy is strong and the time to reduce them is when it's weak. Since we have a progressive tax schedule, only people who are doing well without regard to the economy are paying the higher taxes. Again, historically lowering taxes has not demonstrated any correlation to helping the economy. For what I think are obvious reasons.

What logic was that John? Jeremy posted up some crap about past spending under a different president trying to justify the amount of spending that is going on now. I disagreed with it. I don't care what side you are on, the spending needs to be cut.

No Paul, that was not the point. The point is, yes in the past, Bush waged two wars that we couldn't pay for and still can't pay for it. Yet, during the 2008 campaigns, and even today, you had most Republicans proclaiming that we can't leave Iraq or Afghanistan (Don't cut and run, or some crap like that). And you have the GOP's candidate thumping his chest about going to war with Iran, which we definitely can't afford. And still the party bashes Obama, primarily on his spending, but yet does nothing to address the spending needs.

"Are you one of those idiots that thinks if it was done in the past, its ok for the future?"

^The point is how do we pay for it, Ron? You do realize that the cost of a war of that magnitude is going to make Iraq and Afghanistan look like pocket change? I mean is it not hypocritical to accuse Obama of having a spending problem, yet have no issue with waging a full-blown attack against Iran, in fact, campaigning on it? It's just more proof that neither party is serious about cutting the deficit.

No Paul, that was not the point. The point is, yes in the past, Bush waged two wars that we couldn't pay for and still can't pay for it. Yet, during the 2008 campaigns, and even today, you had most Republicans proclaiming that we can't leave Iraq or Afghanistan (Don't cut and run, or some crap like that). And you have the GOP's candidate thumping his chest about going to war with Iran, which we definitely can't afford. And still the party bashes Obama, primarily on his spending, but yet does nothing to address the spending needs.

"Are you one of those idiots that thinks if it was done in the past, its ok for the future?"

Like dreaming of going back to the days of Reagan???

I guess if I would have said anything about it being ok for the Republicans doing it, you might be right.

Sadly, Dr. Shakeel Afridi, the guy who helped the US catch Bin Laden, was recently sentenced to 33 years for treason in Pakistan, and yes the US still gives Pakistan money. The money sent overseas is a large amount of money that could be put to better use here. IMHO, the only reason why Obama has had his spending curtailed is the last election put a new group of fiscal conservatives in office. Remember, Congress controls the purse strings. America needs to vote out these career politicians. That would be a good Change.

at what point do these wars become Obama's? Since he has been in office we, at one point, were involved in 3 different "wars" at the same time. Hmmmm,

A better question is... when do these wars become the responsibility of the American public? Where is the outrage and protests over the continued occupation and financing of Afghanistan and even Iraq?

Who exactly is Obama supposed to appease with his actions. It's pretty unclear because it appears that the criticism is because Obama's at the helm, not over the choice he's made about the wars. Is there anyone naive enough at this point to actually believe the GOP would support any decision he makes? And the record indicates that the Republicans are still the biggest supporters of tax dollars going into the military/war abyss.

About the only differentiators between the two parties is Republicans want to spend money on the military and nation building without taxing to pay for it. And the Democrats want to spend money on education, medical, and welfare and funding it partly by raising taxes on the highest earners. Neither are interested in balancing the budget or dealing with tough issues.

^As long as we, the American people, continue to have a military made of volunteers and not directly have to pay for military conflicts, we will never take the responsibility for the wars. My biggest gripe with Obama is that he didn't withdraw our forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan within a year of being in office.

John, I still find it amazing that the Repub. pundits are trying to skew the spending numbers in a negative manner. It's the same thing they do with the unemployment numbers.

An old co-worker of mine used to say, "You are only as good as your advisors" and that what concerns me the most about Obama--some of his choices of advisors.. True, none of this is solely Obama's fault--basically, Obama has become a lame duck president--much like Bush became. Surprisingly, our Gov. works better when no one party is in control of anything, so at some point we will survive the current economic slowdown. However, the real problem lies with accountability. So much of the money spent--by both parties--is not managed effectively so it's easy pickings for criminals, in addition to the ones "working" the system and other countries taking advantage of our good-natured money givers. The US takes in enough money to support itself. We just need some leaders who are brave enough to take on the challenges of our ineffective accounting procedures, and allow easier public access to the spreadsheets, votes, and proposed bills that our leaders are endorsing.

Peace through strength has always been the dominant form of peace. Its a survival of the fittest world. The truth is that the only way anyone has ever dictated peace is to destroy those who oppose them before they gain steam. We keep things peaceful by making sure nobody else can fight. Allowing forces who oppose us to build improve their might to the point that they become a threat is foolish. Yes its not exactly "the right thing to do" idealistically, but neither was the foundation of the United States.

Nobody is able to steer this ship as it currently stands. There is not an American among us who could be a successful president. When we elect good presidents they can do nothing to advance us, and when we elect bad presidents they can do nothing to retard us. So, why do we all pretend that electing the "right person" even matters? There was once a time where presidents could inact their will, and by the time everyone caught wind of it, it was already either a success or a failure. With the flow of information the way it is today, any time a whiff of an idea surfaces everyone knows about it and strategizes against it. These actions were what defined their presidency. Those opportunities are few and far between, now.

Its funny, Ive always wondered how citizens allow dictatorships to start. I have a feeling its when democracy fails to the point where nobody is effective and one honest man is needed to be given the reigns temporarily to sort it all out. Isnt that what we all kinda hope for with each new election? Kinda scary

I don't think that it matters. We need to send a clear message that politicians are 1 and done unless they actually can lead effectively enough to solve this nation's problems. Obama can't lead. He needs to be gone regardless of who is running against him.

A few elections from now, maybe Washington as a whole will get the message.

^What qualifies one to "lead"? I assume you believe that Romney can lead and I am just curious on what you base your belief. Why is it "Obama can't lead"? Give me some examples that justify that statement. I personally believe that times would have been worse (and my life is only different from 2008 in the fact that my 401k and Roth Ira have slightly recovered from the hits they took in 2007-2008) had McCain won the election. You have a Congress that is voting against everything he proposes, regardless of what it is. How can one "lead" in that type of environment?

We know how this will play out. If Mitt somehow wins the election, the GOP will lose the house and senate in 2014; but I don't think Mitt will win. Obama will win in November, but the GOP will control the house and senate and we will see much of what we have seen the past two years, very little being accomplished. Washington will never get the message and partisan politics will continue and people will continue to vote for the person based on the letter that follows their name on the ballot. It has now become like rooting for your favorite sports team and the hype and talk about next year after your team just suffered a defeat to their arch rival.

I don't think that it matters. We need to send a clear message that politicians are 1 and done unless they actually can lead effectively enough to solve this nation's problems. Obama can't lead. He needs to be gone regardless of who is running against him.

A few elections from now, maybe Washington as a whole will get the message.

Can you give an example of a president who did lead effectively enough to single handedly "solve the nation's problems?"

These guys are victims or beneficiaries of circumstance. The late 90s economy was no more to Clinton's credit than inheriting an economic collapse was Obama's fault.

I don't think that it matters. We need to send a clear message that politicians are 1 and done unless they actually can lead effectively enough to solve this nation's problems. Obama can't lead. He needs to be gone regardless of who is running against him.

A few elections from now, maybe Washington as a whole will get the message.

I think we should send a clear message that the Republican party isn't capable of leading and recognize that it's put obstruction over the good of the country to gain power. Bad idea to reward the GOP for being traitors to the nation.

See how that works?

In reality Obama has done a fine job of leading when you factor in the level of competence we can expect from our leaders, and the amount of obstruction that the GOP has put in his path. I can't think of anything more stupid than voting a Republican into the White House right now.

I never said that Reagan was perfect. No President has been. The difference is that Obama would only SAY that he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth. He would then try to push legislation that would cost everyone.

The bigger deal, however, is that people and business wonder what comes next. What government control or tax is next. The result of that is people/businesses holding onto their money/profits and no real new job growth.

I am not completely opposed to higher taxes if I had faith that the money was going to reduce the deficit and not be secretly funneled into a program that continues to enable people or create a bigger inept federal government

In a country divided down the middle, how can any president move forward with the will of the majority? Any change will negatively affect one of the two groups.

Reagan was a good president, but he could not be as successful in todays climate. He had the benefit of a conservative majority, and control of information. Neither exist today. A cold war cannot exist anymore.

What we need is someone with FDR type power to undo the governmental flaws (tax structure, tort reform, entitlements, term limits\perks of govt, etc) and trim the government back down to its core job with the stroke of a pen. Then allow the modern society to decide how the money we earn should be spent.

Unfortunately this kind of ability doenst exist anymore. Actually, maybe the best thing we could do is to let everyone else armor up. The only thing that will fix this is if there is a massive change in direction of some of the people to the other side of the isle to create a majority. The only thing that will do this is an overt attack on our soil. Everyone becomes conservative and pro military spending when its in their yard. Suddenly propping up the lazy and art endowments arent as pressing.

We need more conservatives that like to give money to the people they hate the most. You know it's much more important to blow up Muslims and then send them cargo planes packed with cash to install a corrupt govt so we can bribe their leaders. Oh yeah, and while we cut funding for education at home we need to build the Muslims roads and schools.

Berlin Wall? Shoot, that fell under Bush I, not Reagan. I'm not sure how we could say that a former president should be given credit for something that happens after his term. That'd be like giving Carter credit for the release of the Iranian hostages.

Reagan was a spectacular TV presence. Spectacular. His acting chops served him very well in that regard.

But did he single handedly cause the demise of the iron curtain? Interesting Q. In retrospect, his hawkish military spending and aggressive foreign policy (Evil Empire speech anyone?) probably did contribute to the USSR's demise. But their failed economic model was probably leading them there anyhow.

A more interesting Q is whether that experience has been used against us as a weapon? The 80s taught us that military spending alone could ruin a formidable foe who couldn't keep up. Cruise missiles cost about $600K apiece. Less than the 9/11 commission says was spent to fund 9/11 (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/s...errFin_Ch2.pdf).

^Ron, I wasn't implying that Obama is a great leader, I was just curious about what makes Romney a better leader than Obama. If Cliff is advocating us to vote for a "leader", I want to know what that term encompasses.

Sadly, it's gotten to the point of picking the less of two evils. However, I know Romney doesn't have a perfect track record but at least he has some business experience and understands economics and in favor of state's right. Also, imposing a voucher system for school may actually improve our educational system.

Sadly, it's gotten to the point of picking the less of two evils. However, I know Romney doesn't have a perfect track record but at least he has some business experience and understands economics and in favor of state's right. Also, imposing a voucher system for school may actually improve our educational system.

Great, now I've spit my coffee all over my monitor.

How in the world is federal imposition of a voucher system respectful of states' rights?

This whole "states' rights" argument is all fine and dandy till a state says two dudes can get married....

ok. I need you to not pick apart Reagan's policies in the following article, but instead embrace his ability to coordinate some sort of bi partisan legislation.

In contrast, Obama threatens to make an "end around play" every time he can't easily get what he wants. He hasn't taken the time to foster a bi-partisan relationship with congress. He he just pleads to "his" public with threats of doom and gloom and we have to do "this thing" now, or the Earth will end.

Shawndoggy, I apologize for making you spill your coffee. I was trying to say two separate things--my typing skills are lacking at best. I like the school voucher idea--as long as the guardian(s) can provide transportation. In addition to implementing a voucher system, Romney also favors allowing states to govern themselves with less Federal involvement. As far as two dudes getting married, it’s a catch 22. As it stands now, especially if Obama is reelected, if the Federal Gov. were to allow it, your state would have it.

I made a comment that we need a President that can motivate and lead a bipartisan government in order to get fixed what is wrong with our country. I am a bit surprised that the comment is getting so much opposition. Isn't it the Obama lovers that say nothing gets done because the Republicans and Tea party members don't want any Obama agenda to pass?

Isn't it Obama himself saying that there is obstructive attitude in Congress and that if they won't cooperate, then he will just work around them?

All I am saying is that we need a President that isn't so polarizing. It's not a political endorsement for either party. The members of Congress that "we" put there obviously can't/won't work with the President that "we" put there, so it's time for a change.

I still say one and done if you can't lead people to work together.

Geez

All of us here on WW would probably be willing to give each other a pull behind their boat, have a great time on the lake, and enjoy our common hobby together. But, WE can't even agree on what it takes to coordinate compromising solutions to a problem

Cliff, it's not that we don't agree. It's the implicit suggestion that the only alternative is what you are promoting. It would be great if we could have a President that would bring people together with a common cause. But the facts appear to be that the country is polarized by elements far greater than any President could hope to be.

It goes both ways, Mitch McConnell said his number one priority is to make Obama a one term President, Really? Not to get the country out of the recession, not to rebuild falling apart infrastructure, (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and on and on and on, but to defeat this President.So they showed their cards from day one that they are unwilling to work with Obama.The charade the Republican Senate and House is playing is laughable

I guess that somewhere deep down, I believe that there is someone capable of doing the job. It's also clear to me, that Obama is not that guy!

I ran across this article. This exemplifies what I mean when I talk about fear and speculation. If our government is capable of this kind of crap, what's next. These types of things are not good for job creation. If I have to explain that point of view, then things are sadder than I had hoped.

Pelosi and Obama are all about this type of thing. They feel the need to protect us from ourselves......

Pelosi and Obama are all about this type of thing. They feel the need to protect us from ourselves......

What does this have to do with my assertion that The President of the Senates main priority is to defeat Obama. I was just commenting on your claim that Obama is polarizing,
So if the leader of the Senate has set this as his main priority the Republicans aren't polarizing?

Also I didn't see Obama or Pelosi's name in the link you posted. So if it's a crazy idea, all Democrats must be for it? lol

I said "this type of stuff". If you did a bit of research you can find a ton of examples on Pelosi, for example, just refering to the restaurant industry. I neve said ALL democrates were this way, but Obama and Pelosi sure are.

Also, I didn't just address that only Obama needs to be removed, but, there again, with a minimal amount of digging, you could see how Obama either set the stage for non-cooperation or certainly hasn't tried to fix it.

For example, when a President comes and publicly says that his plan is to redistribute wealth, he has set himself up for a long, up hill battle. Certainly a battle that won't involve much cooperation.

If you can't understand that Obama is polarizing, then I will not be able to help you understand my viewpoint.

Cliff, see the problem is that you are insinuating that the Republicans are better. You pinpoint things that you believe are representative of the problem, had nothing to do with your complaint, and then identify Democrats as being like that. IOW your attempt to seem bi-partisan fails at the very first response.

Scott directly addressed your complaint with an example of the problem with partisan politics from the right, then you changed the subject so you could rag on the Democrats. You made an argument about working together and then instantly on the next response demonstrated that you can't do that.

I have not and never will make any attempt to seem bipartisan. I am a believer in a small federal government that lets free markets dictate success. I readily recognize that neither party actually practices this philosophy, but the current body of democrats openly game plans in exactly the opposite direction.

So! If I even slightly gave the impression that I am bipartisan, then I apologize.

What I said was, that in order for us to right the ship, our government needs to be bipartisan. There will be decisions that I won't be wild about. But, Obamas decisions and agenda just flat out scare me.

Also, my point was that regardless of who started the current climate of non cooperation, our "leader" has only thrown fuel on the fire. I advocate that we need a leader that doesn't do that.

And I disagree, I didn't change the subject. I merely stated another example of why Obama is met with such defiance. He is openly radical on many issues

If you aren't bipartisan then why should you expect it from your leaders? This is the statement you made...

Quote:

I made a comment that we need a President that can motivate and lead a bipartisan government in order to get fixed what is wrong with our country.

I got the impression that you were saying that doing away with partisan politics is a priority before moving on to fix the country. I guess what you really meant is that the Republicans are right, should engage in partisan politics, and then use that as justification for getting rid of Obama. That sounds exactly like taking the country hostage and threatening to destroy it unless the demands of the GOP to have the next President aren't met.

Which is pretty much consistent with the impression the GOP is giving to everyone that isn't a dyed in the wool Republican.

why is it so hard to fathom that although I wish everything would go exactly as to my leanings, I recognize compromises are the only way for our government to get things done.

Nothing hard to fathom about it. You were the one to identify the President as a problem wrt partisan politics and raise the issue. Yet this is the hypocrisy that's currently in the GOP playbook. Seems like you are just toeing the line that nobody except Republicans are happy to buy into. Too transparent to be effective as a legitimate argument.

"Also, imposing a voucher system for school may actually improve our educational system."
Wrong! The schools that pop up with the vouchers can't even keep records of where their money goes. If you want to throw money away go with vouchers.
romney will get destroyed when it comes down to debating Obama.